of
1992
tion. The support group may respond to program
the potential that Iandowners will accept and
l
and project technical requests from administrative
implement the necessary
and, perhaps,
agencies and individual projects and be responsible
adopt alternative agricultural systems (e.g.,
for verifying the accuracy and completeness of water
or pas-
changing `from row crops to
quality analyses. Finally, the support group may take
ture), which are integrally tied to water quality
responsibility for the final evaluation by emphasizing
and project goals;
lessons learned, identifying water quality improve-
a plan of work development process to obtain
ments, and making recommendations for future
baseline monitoring data, determine prob-
programs.
lems, refine critical areas and develop BMP
systems, conduct
programs, and docu-
Project Selection
ment effective project administration staffing
Project selection is a key factor for program success.
and cooperative relationships;
Selection criteria are needed to ensure that all pos
sible projects are evaluated for their potential to con-
the ability to conduct an effective
pro-
tribute to program objectives.- Projects should be
gram in advance to determine if key
selected because they have
(e.g., fencing or dairy waste use) will be ac-
ceptable to farm operators;
high priority water resources with docu-
l
mented water quality problems, or
the characterization of the hydrology and pol-
lutant transport system to allow adequate
highly valued water resources threatened by
l
development of water quality goals and
documented agricultural
source pol-
monitoring systems; and
lution (because prevention of severe degrada-
tion is often more cost-effective than restor-
the ability to monitor explanatory variables,
such as season, stream discharge, water table
addition, projects should have the following char-
depth, precipitation, other hydrologic and
acteristics:
meteorologic variables, and land use changes.
water resources having the highest public use
The most successful RCWP projects were those
value (e.g., recreation or water supply) be-
that met most or all of these criteria. The Florida,
cause these projects can show a significant
Idaho, Utah, Vermont, and Oregon RCWP projects
economic benefit:
contained most of these elements and were among
smaller watersheds of less than 30,000 acres
the most successful projects in implementing land
because problems in these areas can be more
treatment and documenting water quality improve
readily identified, are easier to treat, and
ments as a result of RCWP treatment. For example,
respond more rapidly to treatment;
the Utah
project was relatively small (700
acres) with a well-defined critical area in which
the potential for effective control of
were targeted to the major source of pol-
source pollutants;
lutants (i.e., the dairies).
the project had a high
the capability to use water quality models and
level of landowner participation in the critical area.
monitoring to determine if significant pollu-
The Utah project's commitment to a two-year
tion reductions are likely with BMP im-
preproject monitoring program proved to be the key
plementation;
monitoring element that helped document substan-
tial water quality improvements.
clearly stated objectives and goals related to
water quality impairments or conditions
Several other effective projects contained many
threatening designated use;
of the stated criteria but could have been
strengthened if the missing elements had been
the ability to establish and maintain strong in-
present. The Nebraska RCWP project, for example,
teragency cooperation
and institutional
suffered in its early years from the lack of clearly
project coordination;
defined water quality and land treatment goals.
well-defined critical areas in which implemen-
ever, this project developed quantitative water
tation of
targeted to a specific pollutant
quality and land treatment goals, a critical area
(or group of pollutants) can be emphasized;
definition that included
targeted to sediment
and erosion control, and a strong
program
the potential for a high level of landowner par-
resulting in a high level of landowner participation in
ticipation in the critical area;
the critical area.
366
Previous Page
